asked the Minister for Lands if he will state the reasons for the lay-off of eighteen men at Bree forest and of a number of men at Camolin forest, County Wexford; whether any reserve of land is available in these areas or is forthcoming for acquisition; what is the acreage and the locality of land held for forestry purposes in County Wexford where operations have not yet commenced; and what is considered to be the minimum acreage for economic State planting in any area.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Wexford Forestry Operations.
17.
The volume of work available at Bree Forest this year was not sufficient to permit of the continued employment of all the staff employed last season. In the circumstances the recent reduction of staff from 54 to 36 men could not be avoided. The drop in the volume of work is directly attributable to the almost complete exhaustion of the plantable reserve at the Forest.
Future land acquisition prospects in the Bree area are rather poor. Negotiations for the purchase of four areas totalling 84 acres are in progress. There are a small number of cases at the preliminary stages of investigation. All these cases will be expedited as far as possible.
At Camolin Forest it will be possible to take back 8 out of the 12 men laid off immediately, unforeseen delays in road construction having been overcome.
Prospects for the acquisition of additional land for planting in the Camolin district are also very limited. The total area on offer at the moment is only 30 acres.
As regards Co. Wexford generally the total productive unplanted area held in reserve by the Forestry Division at a recent date was 1,183 acres. Of this it is intended to plant areas totalling 672 acres this year.
No absolute criterion regarding the size of an area which may be acquired for State forestry is applied. Each case is dealt with on its merits, having regard to its location in relation to existing forest blocks, its general suitability, prospects of further acquisitions in the vicinity, etc.
Would the Minister not agree that the discharge of these men is due to the fact that his Department are using machinery, as against manual labour, with resultant unemployment?
Machinery has been used for some time for ploughing and other purposes. In this case, the unemployment would be attributable to the exhaustion of plantable reserve and not to any question of machinery.
Does the Minister not agree that in this case machinery has a relation to the number of men being let go?
I have no information at all on that point.
Would the Minister like to investigate that point and find that what I am telling him is correct?
It would not serve any purpose. The major factor is the reserve of plantable land.